On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 05:05:56PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> Chris Mason wrote on 2015/10/27 02:12 -0400:
> >On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 01:48:34PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >>>>Are you testing integration-4.4 from Chris repo?
> >>>>Or 4.3-rc from mainline repo with my qgroup reserve patchset applied?
> >>>>
> >>>>Although integration-4.4 already merged qgroup reserve patchset, but it's
> >>>>causing some strange bug like over decrease data sinfo->bytes_may_use,
> >>>>mainly in generic/127 testcase.
> >>>>
> >>>>But if qgroup reserve patchset is rebased to integration-4.3 (I did all my
> >>>>old tests based on that), no generic/127 problem at all.
> >>>
> >>>Did I mismerge things?
> >>>
> >>>-chris
> >>>
> >>Not sure yet.
> >>
> >>But at least some patches in 4.3 is not in integration-4.4, like the
> >>following patch:
> >>btrfs: Avoid truncate tailing page if fallocate range doesn't exceed inode
> >>size
> >
> >Have you tried testing integration-4.4 merged with current Linus git?
> >
> >-chris
> >
> Integration-4.4 merged with Linus' master also fails. :(
>
> Current known working branches are all based on 4.3-integration(4.2-rc5):
> https://github.com/adam900710/linux/tree/qgroup_reserve_good
>
> Tried 4.3-rc5 and 4.3-rc7, all fails with kernel warning in generic/137.
>
> And due to the huge difference, I'm afraid it won't take a short time to
> find the root cause...
Ok, this is the top merge commit in integration:
commit a9e6d153563d2ed69c6cd7fb4fa5ce4ca7c712eb
Merge: 56fa9d0 0584f71
Author: Chris Mason <c...@fb.com>
Date: Wed Oct 21 19:00:38 2015 -0700
Merge branch 'allocator-fixes' into for-linus-4.4
Please try commit 56fa9d0, which doesn't have Josef's allocator fixes.
It's possible there is a conflict with your changes in there.
-chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
